Mega-Budget American Zoo Exhibits

[AmbikaFan]

Well, even not-for-profits must make ends meet, and earned income provides a big chunk of that. Investment in a sea lion exhibit or performance area is like money in the bank, which can then be used to fund some conservationally-important-but-ho-hum-to-most exhibits on Invertebrates. Doing the Nutcracker for a month each year makes a full year's worth of more experimental and cutting edge work possible.

The zoos who are making upgrades every five years or so are keeping themselves relevant, by creating better ways to exhibit and by reminding locals that the zoo is still there and to make a visit. I've never been to Henry Oorly

Half of my message disappeared when I was called away. I'll try to recreate it later. Sorry

To continue my lost message:. I think there are several factors at play here, several situations. NZP had three huge projects, because there had been three decades of deferred maintenance. Once the first assessment was done of the Zoo's physical plant, the AustralIA pavilion had to be demolished the next day, it was so structurally unsound. The best buildings in the zoo, built 20 years earlier--received grades of D. With the Bird House, things should all be at least safe. This is called, "coming from behind," hence sudden new spending.

Some zoos like SDZ and Columbus maintain a very clean, generically pleasant, manicured look,. Even the Wilds looks manicured! Peopleh used to think of zoos as rough-and tumble, somewhat wild places, but I think we've become so used to this look in amusement parks, arenas, even malls, that it's subconsciously made us expect it everywhere. Now Columbus's latest project is a sheer money earner, a cash cow, but there's been a concerted effort to make everything look clean, fresh, and new.

We may not realize we expect this, but look what happens when we don't get it? How many ZooChatters have called the Bronx Zoo "tired" or "rough around the edges" after a visit? Despite some excellent exhibits, age and deferred maintenance have set in here too. For a long time. Behind-the-scene quarters on The Zoo look pretty shoddy compared to Columbus, SD, Georgia Aquarium, and Chester. Renovations of historic buildings like the Reptile House have huge exterior ducting and unsightly things you'd never see at another premiere. The Bronx Zoo IS scraggly and unmanicured,. The vast majority of funds it gets goes into ex situ conservation, which while admirable and way it probably should be in the best of all possible worlds, but it leaves things at home looking pretty ratty. And when it starts to look ratty, you can be sure that attention is also not being paid to what people can't see--what's behind the scenes, what's behind the walls. Deferred maintenance is going to hit the Bronx in a big way someday--seen in decreased attendance or maybe AZA reports---and the costs will be big. With even Times Square now sleek and modern, the Bronx Zoo isn't going to be able to be rough around the edges forever. Like NZP, a bureaucracy that operates by crisis management will probably step in to save the day--or the conservation budget will have to be tapped. A terrible but inevitable day.

I've forgotten many examples I had made, but I think "sleeker" expectations and facilities lapsing into years of deferred maintenance could also be causes for this trend in pricy exhibits.

One way to look at these big projects positively is that government doesn't float tax issues or approve a 1/4 mil tax to function some new exhibit unless the zoo has become a very integral part of the city's social fabric and many people are affected by it, as guests and workers. Once they make the investment, people are reminded to go more often to see the "new" just as amusement park nerds come out for the season's new ride. Zoos have made it to the big time and are expected to impress us aesthetically and with technology to spread their message effectively.

 

[ANyhuis]

We may not realize we expect this, but look what happens when we don't get it? How many ZooChatters have called the Bronx Zoo "tired" or "rough around the edges" after a visit? Despite some excellent exhibits, age and deferred maintenance have set in here too. For a long time. Behind-the-scene quarters on The Zoo look pretty shoddy compared to Columbus, SD, Georgia Aquarium, and Chester. Renovations of historic buildings like the Reptile House have huge exterior ducting and unsightly things you'd never see at another premiere. The Bronx Zoo IS scraggly and unmanicured,. The vast majority of funds it gets goes into ex situ conservation, which while admirable and way it probably should be in the best of all possible worlds, but it leaves things at home looking pretty ratty. And when it starts to look ratty, you can be sure that attention is also not being paid to what people can't see--what's behind the scenes, what's behind the walls. Deferred maintenance is going to hit the Bronx in a big way someday--seen in decreased attendance or maybe AZA reports---and the costs will be big. With even Times Square now sleek and modern, the Bronx Zoo isn't going to be able to be rough around the edges forever. Like NZP, a bureaucracy that operates by crisis management will probably step in to save the day--or the conservation budget will have to be tapped. A terrible but inevitable day.

I could not agree more! While many zoos (Omaha, Columbus, etc.) have been opening more and more exciting new exhibits, Bronx has been going backwards, closing some of its classic exhibits, including the World of Darkness and even the fun sky ride. But the folks in Bronx can't really be blamed, as some of you have noted, things just plain cost a LOT more in New York City! For example, both Bronx and Omaha opened similar Madagascar exhibits less than 2 years apart, and these two exhibits are quite equal in quality and enjoyment -- but Bronx had to pay $62m, while Omaha paid $10m. But Bronx's regression is the reason they are no longer even a contender for the USA's top zoo. Back when I wrote my first book, in 1994, I considered Bronx almost equal with San Diego for the #1 spot. But now Bronx is probably not even in the Top 5 anymore.

 

[TZDugong]

Back when I wrote my first book, in 1994, I considered Bronx almost equal with San Diego for the #1 spot. But now Bronx is probably not even in the Top 5 anymore.

I'm pretty sure I know 4 of your top 5 (San Diego, Omaha, St.Louis and Columbus), but what would be the 5th zoo? While Bronx hasn't made any major moves in a decade, it's hard to imagine it not being a top 5 U.S zoo imo, although I haven't been to Omaha or St. Louis (I've been to Columbus but didn't really enjoy it, it probably wouldn't make my top 15).

 

[Anniella]

But don't forget that at a lot of major American zoos it is taxpayers funding a certain portion of exhibits along with a lot of philanthropists. Fresno Chaffee Zoo has received more than $110 million in the past 15 years via 'Measure Z', a tax measure that is voted on by the public every few years.

Speaking of Fresno and Measure Z, I'm sure Fresno's "Kingdoms of Asia" (2021?) and future planned African river and African forest will all cost over $10 million, as well as perhaps whatever they end up doing with the South American section down the line.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I'm not going to waste my time getting into another Bronx debate... The zoo is looking a bit shabby in some areas nowadays, this is true. They've been fixing little things here and there, and doing some more major developments such as enclosure redevelopments/refurbishments and some recent signage updates but overall the money does not seem to be present atm for any huge projects. I will repeat what I have and will always repeat, though: they built most of the zoo right the first time and don't have any huge spans of concrete grottos or corncrib cages that need building over in the first place. Exhibits/enclosures built going back to the 1940's are still considered some of the best in the country for their species and their track record says all that needs to be said tbh. I'd be willing to bet that with a fresh coat of paint most people here wouldn't even be able to tell that most of the zoo wasn't built during recent multi-million dollar expansions.

Is there area for improvement? Absolutely, and I hope it will be done sooner rather than later. I'd love to see a something up to par with Asian Highlands--which is probably one of the best exhibits I've ever seen--built at the Bronx (though obviously not an Asian exhibit, their current exhibits are already fantastic as it is). However, it is insane to say that the quality of a zoo is determined by the amount of money it spends on an exhibit and how rapidly it does so. But obvious nobody here truly believes that, otherwise SDZ's $45million Elephant Odyssey wouldn't be so despised

One thing I will argue over, though, is that it's ridiculous to me to say that this, is equal in quality to this. But what do I know, I've only actually visited the zoo within the last decade

~Thylo

 

[TeaLovingDave]

With all due respect to zoos in the United Kingdom, which I will visit one day, there is simply not the appeal for a zoo enthusiast as there is not exactly a long list of truly great zoos.

Because what makes a zoo truly great is conspicuous consumption above everything else, eh?

For example, both Bronx and Omaha opened similar Madagascar exhibits less than 2 years apart, and these two exhibits are quite equal in quality and enjoyment -- but Bronx had to pay $62m, while Omaha paid $10m.

Of course, by the logic of @snowleopard this means that Bronx is approximately 6.2 times better than Omaha and given you include Omaha in your top five, you're therefore going to have to invent a new number better than 1.

 

[Anniella]

I'm not going to waste my time getting into another Bronx debate... The zoo is looking a bit shabby in some areas nowadays, this is true. They've been fixing little things here and there, and doing some more major developments such as enclosure redevelopments/refurbishments and some recent signage updates but overall the money does not seem to be present atm for any huge projects. I will repeat what I have and will always repeat, though: they built most of the zoo right the first time and don't have any huge spans of concrete grottos or corncrib cages that need building over in the first place. Exhibits/enclosures built going back to the 1940's are still considered some of the best in the country for their species and their track record says all that needs to be said tbh. I'd be willing to bet that with a fresh coat of paint most people here wouldn't even be able to tell that most of the zoo wasn't built during recent multi-million dollar expansions.

Is there area for improvement? Absolutely, and I hope it will be done sooner rather than later. I'd love to see a something up to par with Asian Highlands--which is probably one of the best exhibits I've ever seen--built at the Bronx (though obviously not an Asian exhibit, their current exhibits are already fantastic as it is). However, it is insane to say that the quality of a zoo is determined by the amount of money it spends on an exhibit and how rapidly it does so. But obvious nobody here truly believes that, otherwise SDZ's $45million Elephant Odyssey wouldn't be so despised

One thing I will argue over, though, is that it's ridiculous to me to say that this, is equal in quality to this. But what do I know, I've only actually visited the zoo within the last decade

~Thylo

I'd also like to add that WCS has recently completed their major sharks expansion at the New York Aquarium and has a total of five facilities to take care of. And while I'm certainly not the first one to echo these statements, WCS actually puts their money where their mouth is and contributes more to conservation than any other American zoo or group of zoos by far.

Not that I think it should be a competition; it absolutely should be a collaboration. SD Zoo and Safari Park and others also play their parts. I just think the vast majority of remaining AZA facilities need to put more effort into conservation, whether ex situ or in situ.

I do one day hope to see Bronx Zoo make another major exhibit complex, but CGZ, Jungle World, Africa Plains, Tiger Mountain, World of Birds, Madagascar, etc. are mostly fine (I didn't say perfect) and often add new threatened species. During my last visit, I was pleasantly surprised by species like maleo in WoB. I think Aquatic Bird House and the pheasant aviaries could use upgrades for sure. They recently upgraded the Children's Zoo, which I did not get to visit. That said, while it wasn't perfect, none of the exhibit complexes were approaching awful. Even the pheasant habitats were mostly fine for their inhabitants, even if they could use more love. Bronx is one of my top two zoos in America along with SDZSP.

 

[sooty mangabey]

Because what makes a zoo truly great is conspicuous consumption above everything else, eh?

Of course, by the logic of @snowleopard this means that Bronx is approximately 6.2 times better than Omaha and given you include Omaha in your top five, you're therefore going to have to invent a new number better than 1.

I think you’re being grossly unfair to @snowleopard here, and somewhat misrepresenting the point he is making! He is pointing out the extraordinary costs of things - but in no way correlating those costs to quality. Indeed, he says...

On the flip side, Reid Park Zoo in Arizona built Expedition Tanzania, a fantastic elephant complex, for only $8.5 million and Sedgwick County Zoo way out in the middle of nowhere (Kansas) built Elephants of the Zambezi River for only $11 million.

...which I very much took to be an acknowledgement that for relatively small amounts of money, real quality can be found.

Where @snowleopard does leave himself open to the sort of comment made by @TeaLovingDave is when he writes....

With all due respect to zoos in the United Kingdom, which I will visit one day, there is simply not the appeal for a zoo enthusiast as there is not exactly a long list of truly great zoos. What U.K. zoo has $110 million to spend on new exhibits, or can get the green light to open a $52 million aquarium within the zoo grounds? Or even spend $16 million on a series of new exhibits? There's Chester...and...and...and???

...which sort of chimes with @reduakari ’s view on UK zoos:

... in the entire UK, only one zoo exhibit sounds appealing to me in and of itself (Chester’s Islands). Collections and history are other good motivators for visiting a number of UK zoos, but from what I’ve seen there is nothing like a Masoala, a Congo, a Gondwanaland...or even a Central Park snow leopard, a Nuremberg Desert, Blijdorp okapi greenhouse or Cologne Hippodom-type exhibit to be found anywhere in the UK.

It is interesting that in amongst @reduakari ’s list, neither the Nuremberg Desert nor Blijdorp’s Okapi Greenhouse are hugely lavish exhibits - rather, they are imaginative displays where, while money clearly has been spent, it is not the sort of excessive outlay mentioned elsewhere in this discussion. I think there are a large number of similar low-key exhibits in the UK, nothing costing a great deal but something done with thought and imagination which permits an exciting view of the animals within. Off the top of my head: Newquay’s Jungle Gems aviary; Exmoor’s Sitatunga enclosure; Colchester’s Smooth-coated Otter enclosure; Hamerton’s Wombat Aviary; Cotswolds’ Little Africa... none of these could have cost more than £100,000, I would think, but each is superb. The UK does do great exhibits! However, I think the numbers are lower than is the case in Germany or the Netherlands or the Czech Republic or France - and lower than in the USA as well. We are a middle-ranking zoo nation, after all....

 

[TeaLovingDave]

I think you’re being grossly unfair to @snowleopard here, and somewhat misrepresenting the point he is making!

To be fair, I was mostly being tongue-in-cheek in order to set up my quip about the Omaha/Bronx exhibits highlighted by ANyhuis

However, I think the numbers are lower than is the case in Germany or the Netherlands or the Czech Republic or France - and lower than in the USA as well. We are a middle-ranking zoo nation, after all....

Minor sidenote - given how many more zoos some of those countries have than does the UK, it would be interesting to work out if the ratio of great exhibits is all that much higher than it is here, or merely the base number of great exhibits.

 

[Batto]

People used to think of zoos as rough-and tumble, somewhat wild places

That's actually only partly true. For a long time in their history, zoos were meant to showcase wild animals in a safe and (what the particular era and society considered) civilized, ordered manner, analogue to the botanical gardens (hence zoological gardens). Exotic elements, such as architecture aspects from the colonies from abroad, were added to enhance the presentation of the exotic animals, yet all in an orderly fashion. You can still witness elements of this in older zoos such as Antwerp, Vienna etc., which also feature cultivated, well-kept garden and floral elements.
The presentation of zoos as wild, exotic and unruly places (yet safe for kids) is a newer (mainly American) development, aided by marketing campaigns, TV and the spread of immersion exhibits.

The vast majority of funds it gets goes into ex situ conservation

Don't you mean in situ conservation?

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I'd also like to add that WCS has recently completed their major sharks expansion at the New York Aquarium and has a total of five facilities to take care of. And while I'm certainly not the first one to echo these statements, WCS actually puts their money where their mouth is and contributes more to conservation than any other American zoo or group of zoos by far.

Not that I think it should be a competition; it absolutely should be a collaboration. SD Zoo and Safari Park and others also play their parts. I just think the vast majority of remaining AZA facilities need to put more effort into conservation, whether ex situ or in situ.

I do one day hope to see Bronx Zoo make another major exhibit complex, but CGZ, Jungle World, Africa Plains, Tiger Mountain, World of Birds, Madagascar, etc. are mostly fine (I didn't say perfect) and often add new threatened species. During my last visit, I was pleasantly surprised by species like maleo in WoB. I think Aquatic Bird House and the pheasant aviaries could use upgrades for sure. They recently upgraded the Children's Zoo, which I did not get to visit. That said, while it wasn't perfect, none of the exhibit complexes were approaching awful. Even the pheasant habitats were mostly fine for their inhabitants, even if they could use more love. Bronx is one of my top two zoos in America along with SDZSP.

On top of the excellent new shark exhibit, the aquarium is still being rebuilt/renovated from Hurricane Sandy. I believe they will be reopening one of the old buildings again at some point this year. Between the hurricane recovery and their unmatched conservation programs (along with having to run the extremely expensive Central Park Zoo), it's no surprise to me that funds for new exhibits at the Bronx have been pretty low. I agree with you 100% on the conservation efforts.

In addition to the Children's Zoo, which now has a mostly Americas theme to it, the zoo also renovated half of the ZooCenter in order to build the monitors and giant tortoise exhibit back in 2014. Personally I think the Birds of Prey cages and the Aquatic Bird House are in the most need of love. The former I maintain is not as bad as some people say, but mostly because they now hold almost all non-flighted rescue birds and/or smaller species of owls. I'd still like to see the few larger species be given proper aviaries, though, with the remaining spaces converted entirely for small species such as the present owls and perhaps pygmy falcons. The latter exhibit I also think is mostly fine, the building just needs some cleaning up and the species arrangement needs some reorganizing. I don't really see a problem with the Pheasantry tbh. The metal bars may be unsightly and I'd happily see them replaced with mesh but there isn't exactly anything wrong with the enclosures themselves afaik. Similar pheasantry complexes can be seen more often in European zoos, namely at Weltvogelpark Walsrode and Berlin Zoo.

I don't think I'd call any exhibit at Bronx perfect either, I'm hardpressed to think of any that I wouldn't make at least some changes to. Still, I don't think anyone here would argue that Congo Gorilla Forest (1999), JungleWorld (1985), Madagascar! (2008), World of Birds (1972), and Baboon Reserve (1990) aren't among some of the best zoo exhibits in the world despite most having been built up to and over 30 years ago.

~Thylo

 

[Zooplantman]

Most major zoo exhibits in the US these days are designed by specialized companies that the zoo contracts work out to. I've always been curious to know how much money a zoo would spend if it did more of the creative/design work in-house, and what the qualitative effects on the finished product would be. A question for @Zooplantman, maybe?

Many smaller exhibits are designed in-house by zoos. Most zoos cannot afford a full exhibit design team on staff. Some zoos have one staff designer. The few very large facilities (like the Bronx Zoo) have their own design departments.

So if zoos did all their own design the results would not (in general) be as good as using consultants who have a vast amount of experience to call upon (I for one have worked on about 60 exhibits). This experience results in faster, more thorough designs. It may result in more creative designs but not necessarily. If you consider that the outside designers would need to be replaced by paid on-staff designers, I would guess that about 5% of the project cost might be saved. That's all

 

[Arizona Docent]

...WCS actually puts their money where their mouth is and contributes more to conservation than any other American zoo or group of zoos by far...

Yes, yes, yes! In my opinion, conservation should be the primary goal of any zoo. While many zoos say it is (even some lousy roadside zoos with zero conservation or education value), very few put their money where their mouths are. The fact that the average donation to field conservation within the AZA is just over 2% of annual operating budget is appalling. I mean really these facilities should be disgusted with themselves. I think the AZA should enforce a mandatory 5% as a requirement for accreditation (and even that amount is too low in my opinion, but it's a start).

 

[Arizona Docent]

As for the high price tag of these exhibits, it is an interesting discussion. While I do not necessarily have a problem with it, I must confess some of these budgets seem a bit outrageous. I will also point out some of my favorite exhibits are those that were very simply (and cheaply) built around the existing terrain. Phoenix Zoo used an existing desert hillside for their bighorn sheep exhibit and it it the best I have seen anywhere. Two of my all time favorite zoos - Le Parc Des Felins and Northwest Trek - have virtually their entire facility built by fencing in existing woodland.

 

[TZDugong]

As for the high price tag of these exhibits, it is an interesting discussion. While I do not necessarily have a problem with it, I must confess some of these budgets seem a bit outrageous. I will also point out some of my favorite exhibits are those that were very simply (and cheaply) built around the existing terrain. Phoenix Zoo used an existing desert hillside for their bighorn sheep exhibit and it it the best I have seen anywhere. Two of my all time favorite zoos - Le Parc Des Felins and Northwest Trek - have virtually their entire facility built by fencing in existing woodland.

I definitely agree with you here. Another good example of a cheap exhibit using natural terrain is Living Desert’s Bighorn Sheep exhibit, which I thought was tremendous.

I also agree with the price tag bit. For example, I really like Africa Rocks at San Diego, but there’s no way any exhibit should cost $70 million dollars. With that money they could’ve fixed most, if not all of their bad exhibits.

 

[Arizona Docent]

As for comment above about Africa Rocks, another thing to keep in mind is that projects are relative to the budget of the facility. Yes 70 million is a huge figure, but San Diego's annual operating budget is in the millions, possibly even tens of millions (does anyone have that figure?). So relative to their budget it's not that big. However for a zoo with an annual operating budget of less than a million, like my local Reid Park Zoo (at least I think it is less), a project of say 10 million is relatively larger and more daunting than a project of 70 million for San Diego. Also I will point out to @TZDugong that Africa Rocks DID fix some of their bad (or outdated) exhibits as it did away with the substandard hoofstock grottoes and the (less offensive) old cat exhibits.

 

[TZDugong]

As for comment above about Africa Rocks, another thing to keep in mind is that projects are relative to the budget of the facility. Yes 70 million is a huge figure, but San Diego's annual operating budget is in the millions, possibly even tens of millions (does anyone have that figure?). So relative to their budget it's not that big. However for a zoo with an annual operating budget of less than a million, like my local Reid Park Zoo (at least I think it is less), a project of say 10 million is relatively larger and more daunting than a project of 70 million for San Diego. Also I will point out to @TZDugong that Africa Rocks DID fix some of their bad (or outdated) exhibits as it did away with the substandard hoofstock grottoes and the (less offensive) old cat exhibits.

Yeah, I know Africa Rocks fixed a bad area of the zoo, but my point is that if they spent less on AR they could’ve used that money to fix the bear grottoes and monkey cages in the center of the zoo.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

As for the high price tag of these exhibits, it is an interesting discussion. While I do not necessarily have a problem with it, I must confess some of these budgets seem a bit outrageous. I will also point out some of my favorite exhibits are those that were very simply (and cheaply) built around the existing terrain. Phoenix Zoo used an existing desert hillside for their bighorn sheep exhibit and it it the best I have seen anywhere. Two of my all time favorite zoos - Le Parc Des Felins and Northwest Trek - have virtually their entire facility built by fencing in existing woodland.

I definitely agree with you here. Another good example of a cheap exhibit using natural terrain is Living Desert’s Bighorn Sheep exhibit, which I thought was tremendous.

I'd love to repeat these sentiments as well. I haven't been to Phoenix, but Living Desert's enclosure is in the running for best individual hoofstock enclosure in the world and all it is is a natural rock formation with a chainlink fence around it! I imagine you both would love the caprine and Barbary Macacque enclosures at Prague Zoo, which have all been constructed in a similar manner.

On the subject of Bronx, I'd imagine most of us would agree that the Wild Asia Monorail features some of the zoo's (and country's) best hoofstock enclosures, most of which I'd imagine would have been built fairly cheaply since they're also just acres of natural woodland fenced in.

~Thylo

 

[AmbikaFan]

That's actually only partly true. For a long time in their history, zoos were meant to showcase wild animals in a safe and (what the particular era and society considered) civilized, ordered manner, analogue to the botanical gardens (hence zoological gardens). Exotic elements, such as architecture aspects from the colonies from abroad, were added to enhance the presentation of the exotic animals, yet all in an orderly fashion. You can still witness elements of this in older zoos such as Antwerp, Vienna etc., which also feature cultivated, well-kept garden and floral elements.
The presentation of zoos as wild, exotic and unruly places (yet safe for kids) is a newer (mainly American) development, aided by marketing campaigns, TV and the spread of immersion exhibits.

Don't you mean in situ conservation?

Yes, that ethic was certainly present here too in the Victorian era,. Activities that stirred the emotions beyond the constraint you mention were frowned upon. NZP was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, famed designer of Central Park and botanical gardens. The Chicago World's Fair of 1892 was designed with classical white buildings around a beautiful lake. Then city planners and the upper crust were horrified to discover that the Midway full of rides, amusements, exotic performers from all over the world, and a decidedly unruly atmosphere was far more popular than the pristine, manicured exhibits--lol even though the Midway had been intentionally located far, far back from the exhibits near the lakeside. This idea blossomed in Coney Island, the first real destination for middle and lower class people, where men and women might actually come into contact with one another or an ankle might be revealed when a skirt actually rose rn a ride. The upper crust had a cow at the immorality of it all, because passions certainly were aroused in ways museum paintings and chamber music did not. Although this was the beginning of cultural rough and tumble here, you have to remember that our country was still the Wild West in the 1800s, still and largely wild in its truest sense. So we have that semblance of history rattling in our bones too. Perhaps it's a subconscious rebellion of that that now everything must be so sterile and modern.

In situ--ya got me there.

 

[Coelacanth18]

The presentation of zoos as wild, exotic and unruly places (yet safe for kids) is a newer (mainly American) development, aided by marketing campaigns, TV and the spread of immersion exhibits.

Based on the timing, I would have guessed that the transition from museum-like collections to the current immersion-based exhibits would have been a) the rise in the American middle class following WWII and the subsequent adaptation of zoos from living museums into a place of recreation for America's rapidly growing class of middle-income families, and b) the transition of zoos into institutions that emphasized conservation, which prompted them to make efforts to exhibit animals in the context of their environment rather than in the context of taxonomy. It would be interesting to see a full cultural and architectural dissection of the transition, though. I'm also curious why Europe seems to have developed along a somewhat different trajectory.